.243 85gr= Strange Reaction from Deer?

[Slamfire]

I gave up high velocity, hydro shock, hunting when I bought my first Swede Model 94. I think it cost me all of $30. Others may believe what they want, and if they just keep interjecting, I can mark them for ignore. 

[ratgunner]

 

[huntswithdogs]

Fellers,

I've killed a lot of deer over the years. I've shot them with 243's on up to 12 ga slugs. I've had varying results with all. The one that I shot with the 12 ga slug, went 60-70 yds with a hole in her that you shove your fist into. If ever shock would have been factor this was it. I've shot them with my lowly 243 and had them drop in their tracks. This is not to say that I've not had one go up to 100 yds, beacuse I have. Heck I lost one last year to another hunter on an adjacent property that I'd shot through the right shoulder in a quarter to me shot. I never would have thought it would go across the fence but it did.

Everytime we pull, the trigger it's a new story.

Just my 2 cents

HWD

[ccoker]

yep
my brother shot a nice buck last year with his new rifle, first shot in the field
270 wssm
about 200 yards out, hit in the high shoulder area
watched it drop in the scope
it was laying on it's back with it's nose up in the air with another round chambered and sighted in for about 15 mins ready to issue another shot if it wiggled..
well, after about 15 minutes or so he figured it was dead, so, he reached down to get a drink of water
as he looked up (about 15 seconds later) he saw movement and saw it crawl off into the brush
waited about 30 minutes, he went down there, I met him down there coming from another angle and we saw blood on the ground, a little bit in some grass and that was it
my dad came over and we all looked for probably 2-3hrs
about a hundred yards away was a fence line (barbed) and a big field (farming, dirt)

we never found it
he was using ballistic tips, I suspect it just hit so hot it just exploded, no real penetration to vitals and it got up and ran off when we got down there..
he was SO bumed

[Aaro]

my friend and I both shoot 243 at everything and we reciently started shooting 85 grain gamekings. I reload and he shoots the pmc bullets. I havent gotten to shoot a deer with it yet but he shot a 120lb doe quatrering to him at about 50 yards and everything between the ribs were mush and there were chunks of lung on the ground where he shot her. She ran about 25 steps and expired. I was really impressed and am looking foward to taking a deer with these. I have taken a bobcat at about 50 yards and it went down instantly with a exit wound big enough to stick my fist through.

[Todd1700]

Here is a good read on the subject.

Part I: "Energy Dumping" Is A Myth
Let me state right here and now that there are two terms you're going to hear that have no meaning. If you haven't heard them yet, you will, if you spend any time at all on a shooting range or hanging around the wiseacres in gun shops. Both refer to popular myths among shooters about how a bullet kills, and are based on thorough misunderstanding of ballisitics and biology.
"Hydrostatic shock" is the idea that a bullet kills by setting up a "shock wave" in the incompressible water of which an animal's body is largely composed. "Energy dumping" is the concept that if a bullet stops within an animal, it will kill more effectively than one that goes through and exits, since it "releases its entire amount of energy within the body."

As intuitively appealing as these notions are, the fact is that a bullet kills the same way any other agent of penetrating trauma does. A bullet may act faster than a knife or an arrow, but like them it kills either: 1) by causing a rapid loss of blood pressure, depriving the central nervous system of oxygen; or 2) by physically interfering with nerve pathways; or 3) both.
The False Reasoning Behind The "Energy Dumping" Fallacy
The bullet does indeed have a good deal of kinetic energy, and the faster it's moving the more it has, of course. In the USA bullet energy levels are rated in "foot-pounds", a relatively obscure unit implying the amount of energy needed to move one pound of weight one foot.
European countries use the much more sensible metric system, and in this system the energy unit is the "joule". While both these units refer to energy of movement, the joule has the advantage that it can easily be converted to units used to measure heat. One calorie is equivalent to 4.1 joules, the calorie being a unit of heat. Specifically, one calorie is the amount of heat needed to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius. (The comparable unit in the US system is the BTU, but converting foot-pounds to BTU's is not so straightforward as converting joules to calories.)
A bullet fired from a reasonably powerful handgun, say a hot 9mm Parabellum load, has an energy level of perhaps 500 joules at the muzzle.
So why do I care about converting muzzle energy figures into heat? Because if a bullet is stopped in its target, that's exactly what happens: its residual kinetic energy is, in fact released (or, as the wiseacres have it, "dumped") into the animal's body; but it's released as heat, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. (This is the reason why your car's brakes heat up when you stop: that energy can't be destroyed, it can only be converted to another form, and the "defaut" is to convert it to heat.)
The amount of heat liberated by stopping a bullet is surprisingly small: 500 joules works out to be about 106 calories. That would be enough to raise 106 grams (about 0.25 pounds) of water one degree Celsius (about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). That's not all that much, especially when compared to the size of animal it has to be "dumped" into.
A man is a pretty large animal (about the size of a deer) and 500 joules (or 106 calories) of energy diffused through the body of a 150-pound (68,100 gram) human would not suffice to raise his body temperature even one-one-hundreth of a degree Fahrenheit. And that is a maximum amount, which assumes the bullet is stopped and that the shot was fired at point-blank range. To have a noticeable effect on tissue temperature you would have to "dump" a great deal more energy than 500 or so joules: the amount of heat liberated even by the biggest and baddest bullet available is very far below the capacity of the body's water to absorb it. It should be obvious, then, that the theory of "energy dumping" is based on an exaggerated idea of how much energy a bullet actually has, and is meaningless as a part of the killing mechanism.
Believers in the "energy dumping" theory never seem to have an adequate explanation for the fact that there are many, many gunshot victims are still walking around with bullets that "dumped" all their energy, and are still inside the victims. Many people with such retained bullets received them at close range from large-caliber guns, and were therefore the unlucky recipients of lots of "dumped" energy, but they are still alive. The answer, however, is really very simple: they are still alive because they were lucky enough not to have received a hit in a vital area.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II: "Hydrostatic Shock" Is An Even Bigger Myth
Proponents of the "hydrostatic shock" theory usually argue that animals are composed largely of water, and therefore a bullet causes a "shock wave" to be set up in them, which causes displacement of organs, and rupture of tissues. Their belief in this concept is bolstered by the spectacular splashes that expanding bullets make when fired into plastic milk jugs filled with water: they imagine that something of the same thing happens in an animal body. They are wrong.
First, animals aren't jugs of water, and don't resemble jugs of water in the least. Animals don't have uniform internal density, and the response of muscle to a bullet is very different than that of, say, the bones or the lungs. At the microscopic level, animals are actually very compartmentalized, and there is almost no "free" water (or any other liquid) to constitute a homogeneous medium in which a "shock wave" can be propagated for more than few millimeters. About the only places where large quantities of fluids are found sloshing around are in the spleen and liver, both of which contain sizeable volumes of "loose" blood.
Second, it has been demonstrated quite conclusively that most body tissues are very tolerant of momentary deformation and quite resilient. Unless a bullet physically cuts a blood vessel or nerve, little more than localized damage is done by its passage.
It is true that in passing through, a bullet does form a so-called "temporary wound cavity" of considerable size, which lasts for milliseconds. Inside this volume a "shock wave" does form, and it even displaces some organs. But the effect of the temporary wound cavity is small, and most tissues and organs resist this very brief deformation. There is certainly no possibility--as you will frequently be told by ignorant gunshop clerks--that you can "...hit a man in the arm and the shock will travel through the blood to his brain and kill him..." Blood is carried in blood vessels, and those vessels are tough. Anyone who has dissected a freshly-dead animal will testify to the strength of an artery: it takes a good deal of force to rupture one, and physical displacement for a few milliseconds isn't enough. It's perfectly possible to displace an artery by several inches permanently with no loss of function. To do significant damage the artery has actually to be hit by the bullet, preferably by the sharp edges of the expanded outer jacket, which will cut it.
Furthermore, there is no way the "shock wave" could "travel through the blood" because the design of the system is such that a) it permits only one-way flow; and 2) it dampens pressure oscillations of considerable magnitude. Arteries that carry blood to the body are very muscular structures and designed to resist considerable heads of pressure lest they burst. And as they get smaller and smaller, ramifying to all the organs, the resistance to flow increases greatly. Even if you were to set up a significant "shock wave" locally, it wouldn't get very far in the system before the increasing resistance to its passage would dampen it out completely.
The True Believers in the "hydrostatic shock" myth often point to the messy soup found inside the chest of deer hit in the lungs as "proof" they are right. But they are really pointing to a major hole in their argument. There isn't any "free" blood in the chest of any mammal: like blood elsewhere, it's in blood vessels.
The lungs are a sort of enormous capillary bed, with millions of small blood vessels lying between the gas-exchange surfaces. Most of the volume of the chest is air. The vast quantities of blood found in the chest cavity of a lung-shot animal weren't there when the shot was fired. The free blood found in the chest after a shooting got there because the bullet damaged the blood vessels running through the area.
An expanding bullet does a fearful amount of damage to the extremely delicate tissue of the lungs, but this region also includes major blood vessels (the aorta and pulmonary artery, to name two) which are usually damaged as well. These pour enormous quantities of blood into the thoracic cavity when they're ruptured. Contraction of the body musculature and the pumping of the heart (if it too isn't hit) will assure this. The blood in the chest cavity is the result of the damage, not the cause of it, and the "shock wave" isn't propagated through it at all.

[ratgunner]

WOW, now I'm convinced...NOT. Who wrote all that and forgot to sign it ?

[T.R.]

I've killed many antelope and a couple mulies with Sierra's now discont'd 80 grain Pro Hunter bullet.  Most toppled in their tracks.  But I recall shooting a doe that bounded away as if unhurt for about 20 yards; then it fell over into a tangle of sage. Both lungs were mush.  Go figure.

At the time, I felt that highest possible velocity was important.  My current focus is shooting tight little clusters of groups that resemble one ragged hole.  Of course bullet performance is critically important.  I'm very impressed with 95 grain Nolser Ballistic Tip and Hornady SST.

.243 is a keeper!

TR 

[Lee Robinson]

Shot placement.

[ccoker]

yep...

[ratgunner]

I agree.

[DavOh]

Think about it this way.  If a bullet killed by transfering energy, rather than penetrating, why do bullet proof vests work.  They work by spreading the driving energy of the bullet away from the tip, thus catching the bullet, rather than all the energy causing penetration.  Energy is transfered to the vest which transfers energy to the wearer of the vest.(producing bruising and sometimes bruised and broken ribs).  where's the shock there??? 

Penetrating trauma is how a bullet kills.  Ask a coroner.  They'll tell you.  After all, the tissues a deer's body is made of are not all that different from our own.

[ratgunner]

Not so fast DavOh.If the bullet doesnt penetrate it wont shock inside where it counts.[your right there].But it is a factor of penetration and shocking power .If penetrating truama  was a fast killer then why are bullets designed to mushroom ?And the original poster asked about getting faster kills.This has gotten WAY off topic. ::)And a person CAN be killed by the shock trauma while wearing a bullet proof vest,but not by penetration.Ask the coroner about that.

[jpsmith1]

A person can also be beaten to death, which is what happens if a person is killed by shock trauma without penetration.  The equvalent of 'Blunt Force Trauma'  We've all heard that.

As we've basically determined,

1> If you land a bullet in the wrong place, it won't kill quickly.
2> Unless the bullet reaches the vitals, it won't kill quickly.

Do bullets transfer energy upon impact?  Certainly.  No matter what they hit, there is an energy transfer there.  I don't believe that it's as dramatic a thing as others do, but I prefer redheads ( not ducks, by the way) and some prefer blondes.  On this topic, we must agree to disagree.

[ratgunner]

AMEN,lets just move on to other topics.

[303Guy]

An Old Guy – my uncle – told me of a grazing antelope being shot in the heart, being startled, taking a few steps then continued grazing!  Then it collapsed.  I have no idea of caliber, range, bullet weight or style.

Yup, these things happen.

303Guy

[IOWA DON]

My buddy shot a doe antelope at less than 200 yards with a .270 with a 130-gr Nosler Partition at 3150 fps muzzle velocity. I think the hit was near the heart and we could see a stream of blood pouring out the other side. It pretty much just stood there with its head gradually going down. He asked me to head shoot it so I did and it fell down. The one moose I shot took three lung shots and just stood there. Finally it took a step forward and collapsed. From shooting small game with pellet .22 CB caps compared to .22 high speed long rifle cartridges I think there reaction upon shooting has as much or more to do with the noise level of the gun as it does with the impact of the bullet. I have limited experience bow hunting but I think it is common for arrow shot deer to only run a small distance after being hit, stand there a while and then collapse.

[statelinerut]

I have only used one type of ammo in my 243 Handi and that is the Federal Fusion 95gr. I have taken a nice 8 pointer, 7 pointer, and about 20 does with this round and only one went over 20 yards. I will never use any other than this. They are amazing on whitetail. I would suggest anyone trying them once to just see the results for themselves.

[Coyote Hunter]

 

well... speaking of strange.....its amazing how tough little 120 lbs deer can be.

On october 22 of this year, I shot my first ever 120 lbs doe @ about 50-60ish yards.  I was using brother's 7mm mag with a 175 gr cor-lokt bullet (yeh I know WAYYY over kill).  It was a broad way shot directly through both lungs, in the way in, it broke the left shoulder, destroyed the heart, exploded both lungs, and the deer still managed to run about 15-20 yeards, can you believe that?

The enterance hole was... typical, sise of a 7mm, exit was about the size of a quarter.

It always amazes me when a bullet breaks a shoulder (top of the animal), destroys the heart (bottom of the animal) and explodes both lungs (in between).  Reminds me of the bullet path described by the Warren Commission...

[jpsmith1]

   Those 7mm bullets are 'magic'.  Didn't you know that?   

[tuck2]

I have shot deer with the 22-250 Rem, 243 Win, 257 Roberts, 25-06 Rem, 264 Win, 270 Win, and 308 Norma Mag. Most of them were hit in the lung heart area. Some dropped when hit others ran a bit.  I used 100 Gr Hornady bullets in my 243 Win and they worked well for me.

[fisher]

  Ive shot a few deer over the years and always used a 270 or 06. I got a deal on one of those new fangled 243 wssm's nobody likes and thought I would try it as I Really Really liked the way it felt nice little rifle.  I shot 5 deer with it the first year one behind the shoulder (deer went 10 or 15 yards) next one under the chin (dropped like a rock) one facing me right through the brisket (went maybe 10 feet) and the last one was a muff shot ,kind of a long one across a ridge 1" right of the fanny hole she took a step as I squeezed one off,..( she went about 500 yards. Using the 06 as A kid we always shot for the shoulder ie break a bone and put them down (alot of wasted meat) it is a great shot and works good but most of the time in my limited experience if you don't braek a structural weif=ght carrying bone on an animal it will walk (if not scared) untill its lungs fill up with blood and it drowns or it bleeds out and gets sort of sleepy from lack of blood even if heart shot.  In my younger Days before I knew better 3 shots behind the shoulder with cheap .22 ball ammo would put a deer down within 100 yds Unless Frightend.   

 Just my 2 cent's

[coyotejoe]

At various times I've shot either deer, elk, or antelope with: .22LR, .22 WMR, .223, .243, .250 savage, 6.5x55, .280 rem, .30 carbine, 30/30, .308, .357 mag, .45 Colt, .45/70, .50 and.54 muzzleloaders and a .648" ball from a 12 gauge muzzleloader. So far as I can determine any one worked about as well as any other. No animal dropped in it's tracks except for brain or spine shots. No animal traveled much over fifty yards from where hit except one antelope hit at about 400 yards with the .280 Remington and 160 grain Nosler partition, that one walked about 200 yards and lay down. That was the only animal which required a second shot.
 I used to be a fan of Elmer Keith and believed "bigger is better" but my own experience now leads me to believe that if you put a bullet in the right place it doesn't make much difference as to how big or small the bullet nor how fast it travels, they'll all kill rather quickly. And if you put a bullet in the wrong place?  Well just don't do that!

[303Guy]

At various times I've shot either deer, elk, or antelope with: .22LR, .22 WMR, .223, .243, .250 savage, 6.5x55, .280 rem, .30 carbine, .....

Coyotejoe,
I am wanting to hunt feral goats with my hornet but am worried about it's effectiveness.  I don't trust the hornets power for shoulder shots.  (I don't do head shots).  I would use a heavier 50 gr soft point for it's better penetration.  At 125 yds it has the muzzle velocity of the .22 WMR.  I do have a heavier 303 Lee Enfield but my terrain is going to be densely wooded and very hilly.  Would you do it?

303Guy

[Brithunter]

Hmmmmm I am not sure that using the Hornet would be wise but then I have no experience with either the Hornet nor feral Goats however seeing as how you have a .303 available I would certainly use that. If you hand load then the 150 Grn bullet would be my choice and these are of course even available in factory fodder.

[Sweet 6.5]

I agree with Brithunter - go with the 303. No worry about
penetration!

[coyotejoe]

At various times I've shot either deer, elk, or antelope with: .22LR, .22 WMR, .223, .243, .250 savage, 6.5x55, .280 rem, .30 carbine, .....

Coyotejoe,
I am wanting to hunt feral goats with my hornet but am worried about it's effectiveness.  I don't trust the hornets power for shoulder shots.  (I don't do head shots).  I would use a heavier 50 gr soft point for it's better penetration.  At 125 yds it has the muzzle velocity of the .22 WMR.  I do have a heavier 303 Lee Enfield but my terrain is going to be densely wooded and very hilly.  Would you do it?

303Guy

If by "shoulder shots" you mean to smash the large bones, well I try to avoid that with any caliber, too much meat loss. I go behind the shoulder or in the upper neck of critters facing away or base of the neck on a frontal shot. I try to avoid any large bones so as not to spoil too much meat except for the neck which isn't exactly fine dinning anyhow. If you limit your shots to those you feel certain of good placement, the hornet will do fine. If in doubt, don't.

[303Guy]

Thanks for that.  I have prepped my 303 Brit - re-crowned and muzzle blast deflector fitted plus a re-blue job and new London oil finish on an African walnut stock.  Just need to load up some ammo and sight it in.  It's looking real fine so I shall put up with the heavy weight for now.  If it hurts too much, I'll use the hornet next time.

303Guy

[rickt300]

I feel fast bullets do enough radial damage that kills are usually quick as long as penetration is there. The 80 grain PSP out of my 6MM Remington or the 60 grain Hornady out of my 22-250 kill very well. If you the kind of guy that just shoots at the deer then these are not for you, however if you are a careful shooter they are more than adequate. There are two guys that swear by 30-30's on our lease and they get deer but almost always after an involved search even with pretty good hits. With my two "fast" rifles I have yet to have one go out of sight and most are down inside of 50 feet.

[smokepolehall]

Over the years i have taken a few deer with mid wt. Hp's . They tend to make almost every deer i shot do what you discribed as strange. Bullets blow the lungs and other organs up and it certainly puts the hurt on them. I have had them crow hop a few yds. and stagger and flop down, down for!